Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.155 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.155;
References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <51BDBA1D.80602@gmx.de> <CA+gZtgKULyTpGdDYwykN0H6bkUQJEVpoCSN=+PwCO4toXA+tGA@mail.gmail.com> <51BE419F.4090806@gmx.de> <1371434761.19218.YahooMailNeo@web184405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <51BEBACC.7090706@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <1371471976.58028.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <51BEBACC.7090706@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-334495122-1386430054-1371471976=:58028"
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

---334495122-1386430054-1371471976=:58028
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, it is Lojban terminology at work again: mi and do are sets, if anythi=
ng with a name (L-sets), so "union" seems appropriate, while "along with" s=
ounds like accompanying, not union.=A0 {lo}expressions are also sets in the=
 same sense.=A0 If {lo'i} means something else, it means C-sets, which are =
virtually useless for linguistic purposes and belong, if at all, to MEX.=A0=
=20
In passing, I note {me} being used for "is a member of", which is not what =
it means, although I suppose it does include that meaning as a remote part.


________________________________
 From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
=20

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> I'm still finding this confusing, probably partly from Lojban
> terminology. mi'o is apparently the union of mi and do, written {mi
> jo'e do}?,

Not a union, since {mi} and {do} aren't sets in the Lojban {lo'i}-sense.
So, not {jo'e}, but {jo'u}, which creates a "group" like a {lo}-sumti.

{mi jo'u do}

> without comment about how they interact with properties.=A0 To say, {ro
> mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely and
> thus amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted.=A0 Of course, other
> quantifiers would not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely
> {su'o mi a su'o do} but nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}).

Well, of course it's {su'o mi .a su'o do}. {su'o} corresponds to {.a},
and {ro} to {.e}, that's why the two expressions have different expansions.

However, a more general way to write either expression is:

=A0=A0=A0 PA mi'o
=3D=A0=A0=A0 PA da poi ke'a me mi'o
=3D=A0=A0=A0 PA da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do

Thus:

=A0=A0=A0 ro mi'o
=3D=A0=A0=A0 ro da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
=A0=A0=A0 "For all X such that X is among the group of me and you."
=A0=A0=A0 "Everything that is among the group of me and you."

and

=A0=A0=A0 su'o mi'o
=3D=A0=A0=A0 su'o da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
=A0=A0=A0 "There exists some X such that X is among the group of me and you=
."
=A0=A0=A0 "At least one thing that is among the group of you and me."

The basic point is that:

=A0=A0=A0 mi .e do me mi jo'u do

> I don't get the point about {mio}, largely because I don't quite see
> what it is supposed to be (it isn't given anywhere and doesn't appear
> to be Lojban).

"mio" is one of the loglan words for "we". It appeared earlier in this
thread. I deliberately avoided the curly {}-quotes to set it apart from
the Lojban words, else it really does look like a typo.

Definition of "mio" (which does *not* correspond to {mi'o}):
> mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently"
> sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e
> da'.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group=
s "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


---334495122-1386430054-1371471976=:58028
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ti=
mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">Well, it is Lojban te=
rminology at work again: mi and do are sets, if anything with a name (L-set=
s), so "union" seems appropriate, while "along with" sounds like accompanyi=
ng, not union.&nbsp; {lo}expressions are also sets in the same sense.&nbsp;=
 If {lo'i} means something else, it means C-sets, which are virtually usele=
ss for linguistic purposes and belong, if at all, to MEX.&nbsp; <br>In pass=
ing, I note {me} being used for "is a member of", which is not what it mean=
s, although I suppose it does include that meaning as a remote part.<br><di=
v><span><br></span></div><div><br></div>  <div style=3D"font-family: times =
new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style=3D"font-fa=
mily: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir=
=3D"ltr"> <hr size=3D"1">  <font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"> <b><span
 style=3D"font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> selpa'i &lt;seladwa@gmx.de&gt=
;<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> lojban@googlegro=
ups.com <br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday,=
 June 17, 2013 2:29 AM<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject:</=
span></b> Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?<br> </font> </div=
> <div class=3D"y_msg_container"><br>
la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e<br>&gt; I'm still finding this confusing, probably=
 partly from Lojban<br>&gt; terminology. mi'o is apparently the union of mi=
 and do, written {mi<br>&gt; jo'e do}?,<br><br>Not a union, since {mi} and =
{do} aren't sets in the Lojban {lo'i}-sense.<br>So, not {jo'e}, but {jo'u},=
 which creates a "group" like a {lo}-sumti.<br><br>{mi jo'u do}<br><br>&gt;=
 without comment about how they interact with properties.&nbsp; To say, {ro=
<br>&gt; mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely an=
d<br>&gt; thus amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted.&nbsp; Of course, other<=
br>&gt; quantifiers would not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely<br=
>&gt; {su'o mi a su'o do} but nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}).<br>=
<br>Well, of course it's {su'o mi .a su'o do}. {su'o} corresponds to {.a},<=
br>and {ro} to {.e}, that's why the two expressions have different expansio=
ns.<br><br>However, a more general way to write either expression
 is:<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PA mi'o<br>=3D&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PA da poi k=
e'a me mi'o<br>=3D&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PA da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do<br><br>Th=
us:<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ro mi'o<br>=3D&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ro da poi ke=
'a me mi jo'u do<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "For all X such that X is among the =
group of me and you."<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Everything that is among the g=
roup of me and you."<br><br>and<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; su'o mi'o<br>=3D&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; su'o da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The=
re exists some X such that X is among the group of me and you."<br>&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp; "At least one thing that is among the group of you and me."<br><=
br>The basic point is that:<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; mi .e do me mi jo'u d=
o<br><br>&gt; I don't get the point about {mio}, largely because I don't qu=
ite see<br>&gt; what it is supposed to be (it isn't given anywhere and does=
n't appear<br>&gt; to be Lojban).<br><br>"mio" is one of the loglan words
 for "we". It appeared earlier in this<br>thread. I deliberately avoided th=
e curly {}-quotes to set it apart from<br>the Lojban words, else it really =
does look like a typo.<br><br>Definition of "mio" (which does *not* corresp=
ond to {mi'o}):<br>&gt; mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others in=
dependently"<br>&gt; sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalen=
t to 'mi, e<br>&gt; da'.<br><br>mu'o mi'e la selpa'i<br><br>-- You received=
 this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" grou=
p.<br>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, sen=
d an email to lojban+<a ymailto=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" hre=
f=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br>To post to this group, send email to <a ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban@google=
groups.com" href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com=
</a>.<br>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.<br>For
 more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br><br><br><=
br><br></div> </div> </div>  </div></body></html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

---334495122-1386430054-1371471976=:58028--